Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

I am a twenty five year old returning to school to earn his master's degree in History. Once I earn that, i plan to teach, but i do not know the level, college or high school, that i want to teach one day.

Monday, May 17, 2010

The Second Amendment

I believe the Second Amendment should be repealed.

For the following reasons, I believe this.

The 2nd is outdated. Upon the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the second amendment was included because, at the time, militias were an accepted and used strategy for the common defense of an area, state, or even the country. No militias are used today, and thus, we do not need to arm the people for the common defense of the country. We consider the ownership of guns as a RIGHT. At best, the ownership of a firearm is a privilege, maybe, but not a right. The implementation of the 2nd amendment to arm the militias against foreign armies or even tyrannical armies at home is no longer needed.

All one needs to do to look at the outdated use of the amendment is look at the words used. Instead of "bear," we use the word own; instead of "arms" we today use the word guns. Now I am not dumb; I hear the arguments already. The entirety of the language of the Constitution is dated, so I cannot make this argument without discarding the entire Consitution. This is not the crux of my argument, it is, however, just away to further indicate the uselessness of the 2nd amendment; the dated idea behind its implementation.

Congress should repeal it. In the Constitution, it says that the government should seek to "insure the domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare..." I believe that the outlawing and destruction of all weapons, including manufacturers, would provide for all three of these efforts. One could make the argument that the elimination of "arms" would promote tranquility, help defend/prevent those who are/will be victims if violent crimes, and overall promote welfare of the people. IF I am to understand these functions of government set forth in the constitution both sides of the political divide hold to be supreme and legally adopted, the government should ACTIVELY seek to destroy the manufacturing and destruction of all guns, or any other weapon that can cause a single mortal blow to another human being.

In one looks at the argument from both sides of the spectrum, one will see that my argument would please both sides. Democrats tend to use legislation as a means to a utopian end. No guns lines up with this argument. Also, Republicans tend to legislate to keep the lawful and orderly, to improve the status quo. "No guns," I believe, would do just that. I believe this is an issue all in Congress and across the nation can agree upon.

Furthermore, people do not NEED to be armed. The constitution sets forth a system that allows for the first civilian, aka the President, to be in charge of the military. This dates back to the times of The American Revolution; the lawmakers and Framers feared a tyrannical political entity that controlled the army, such as King George III did. So, they called for a political system that put the control of the army into the hands of a civilian. Into the hands of the highest civilian in the country: The President of the United States of America. Symbolically and in reality, the army is armed so that we do not have to be. If one looks at it, militias were a large part of the army, and the government sought to arm it. So, if one follows the intent and not the letter of the constitution, the Framers sought to arm the army, and reached for nothing further. In today's time, if the intent is understood and translated into the present, those not in the army would not be armed or effected by the second amendment.

Now, I understand the argument for guns. People have the right to defend themselves. People have the right to go out and hunt for fun; if not, the animal populations overbreed and will die anyway due to a lack of resources that occur naturally. Also, just because we do not arm ourselves, does not mean that criminals, terrorits, or foreign armies will go along with the movement to de-arm our citizenry. I understand the reality versus the idea.

However, someone should start somewhere. In England, it is very hard to get a gun; and there are very few deaths-by-gun in England compared to the US. Only 42 deaths in the entire country in the 2008 year. 42. In the ENTIRE country. The United States suffers thousands of death due to guns, easily more than any country. As of the early 2000s, the United States also suffers the least amount of gun related deaths on accident that any other country. So, we, more than any other country, kill on purpose more. Also, according to a non-profit study organized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gun ownership has a direct correlation to gun-related deaths. States such as Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, Alaska and Montana had the highest gun-related deaths in the country, and not suprisingly, had the highest gun ownership per capita. Also not suprising to this author, (yes, author) the states with the lowest per capita gun ownership had the lowers gun-related deaths per capita.

Yes, I am aware of the argument for guns. I am aware of the potential impracticality for doing away with them. However, someone has to start somewhere. Its about time we stop turning a blind eye to a problem in this country; violence is a problem, one that should be dealth with. When an amendment gets in the way of the promotion of tranquility and general welfare, I believe it should be done away with. Congress has nixed one before for practical, easily identifiable results, why not now?

Perhaps John Lennon said it best. I may or may not be considered a dreamer, but I am not the only one. If all people became the change that needed to be made in the world, then this world would be a better place. I am simply calling for the beginning of this change.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."~ Adolf Hitler

And now a bit of a news article from uber liberal MSNBC

Terrifying home invasion burglaries are not rare events in England. Overall, Great Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the United States, and a higher burglary rate.

Significantly, only about one-eighth of American burglaries take place while the victim is home, whereas over half of all British burglaries do.

One reason that British burglars are so much bolder than their American cousins is that only about 4% of British homes legally possess a gun, whereas about half of American homes do. British police administrators require guns at home to be stored unloaded in a safe, and that ammunition be in a separate safe. No American jurisdiction has such extreme “safe storage” requirements. As a result, an American burglar who breaks into an occupied home faces a significant risk of getting shot.

As I detailed in an article in the Arizona Law Review, when an American burglar strikes at an occupied residence, his chance of being shot is about equal to his chance of being sent to prison. According to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are about half a million incidents every year in which an American burglar is scared away by a victim with a firearm.

First, I must say that your comment is interesting, and has got me to thinking. i will, in the future, rethink my position.

So, lemme see where to start. How many of these embolded robbers have guns? Did the article say. Perhaps, if you are right, there are more violent B&E's, but the presence of a gun doesn't make a crime violent. ANY weapon can bump the crime from theft to robbery. Even physical assault without a gun. so, maybe there are more violent crimes, but how many people are shot because of it? we talking about guns, not violent crimes. lets keep the scope of the argument focused.

Is it proven that the reason that american robbers are deterred by guns, or the impending probability that they will go to jail just AS OFTEN as they are to be shot? perhaps great britain doesn't jail their offenders as often as does the United States, and the deterrent of jail, not potential guns in households, is a deterrent. did the information you came across clarify such facts? i would like to know.

at best, i am not wrong, just posing a more accurate argument. haha.

plus, i am ideologically against them. perhaps if we all were, things would end up better. naivity of youth i suppose.